Cassius, I think what you said here in the intro and at (20:00 -- 20:20) is exactly what Epicurus wanted us to be clear about -- it is more important that we (1) get a clear view about what we are talkng about, rather than (2) use the most precise words. Of course, both are good goals to have!
Great podcast everybody!
As you said, the idea of "joy" in that sentence is coming from kairon.
"...ἀντιπαρετάττετο δὲ πᾶσι τούτοις τὸ κατὰ ψυχὴν χαῖρον ἐπὶ τῇ τῶν γεγονότων ἡμῖν διαλογισμῶν μνήμῃ."
...but over against them all I set gladness of mind at the remembrance of our past contemplations.
We can always organize our lives and our minds to better prevent pain and also "hold our ground against" existing pain. Good points, thanks again!
Epicurus doesn't say the "joy" outweighs or conquers the pain of his condition. The word used is Ἀντιπαρατάσσομαι (antiparatassomai) which conveys "holding one's ground against, and in drawing up troops in battle order, side by side, ready to do battle against an enemy."
There is NO τοῦ κακοῦ (“evil”) in the manuscript! That’s an addition…
Great points, Don, thank you! I have noticed that Perseus has been slow again lately, I wanted to recommend this site, which I just started using.
PHILISTAS of LAMPSACUS (4th – 3rd-century BCE) inspired Carneiscus to write
What do we know of Philista/ Philistas? I am just looking through Carneiscus - Philista Book 2 (P.Herc. 1027) but so far I am unsure about the final "s" and gender of Philistas! Also, it seems there is no text remaining from book 1?
Usener in his Epicurea went even further than this in calling Laertius a 'complete ass'. Which is a touch uncharitable to my taste, but there you have it.
Yes, here we have it:
(Usener, Intro, Page 22) "However many who called Laertius either a poor compiler or, as Roethius of Heidelberg kindly did, a 'true donkey' have honored him too much, who, to put it succinctly, did not even write but left the writing to his scribes."
(Illi et quotquot Laertium siue misellum conpilatorem siue ut Roethius Heidelbergensis solebat humaniter “asinum germanum” dictitarunt nimio eum honore affecerunt, qui, ut uno uerbo dicam, ne scripsit quidem sed scribenda librariis commisit.)
I memorized it in Latin, and Latin Per Diem on YouTube is a great place to start.
I don't think I have seen this before, but I've watched few now and he does a great job.
I can read this particular short section of this one text in Latin because I've worked on it, just like your average Catholic in the days before Vatican II could read the Nicene creed in Latin
I have always felt the same way.
I'll throw this in as well:
Plato, Philebus 21c: (Socrates) And likewise, if you had no memory you could not even remember that you ever did enjoy pleasure, and no recollection whatever of present pleasure could remain with you; if you had no true opinion you could not think you were enjoying pleasure at the time when you were enjoying it, and if you were without power of calculation you would not be able to calculate that you would enjoy it in the future; your life would not be that of a man, but of some mollusc (τινος πλεύμονος) or some other shell-fish like the oyster.
Note "Πλεύμων" which is the term Epicurus used for Nausiphanes.
what do you make of Erik Anderson's translation of U56 that renders ΣTOIXEIΩΣEIΣ ΔΩΔEKA as "Doctrine of the Elements (12 Books)"?
Thank you for asking this question!
Yeah, I'm not seeing this as "12 volumes" but rather as a summary of something with 12 items.
I agree. Thank you for your comments here Don. my guess is one book about 12 principles, but I have no further evidence beyond what you have already provided.
There's no way to tell what those 12 basics were (other than the 1, 2, or 3 stated there
Sad but true. Still, I cannot help but appreciate the efforts of those who try to make a list (because I am not so bold).
Placita means "pleasing things,” or “preferred things” but in a philosophical context, it means "tenets," "opinions," or "views." Τὰ Ἀρέσκοντα (Ta Areskonta) literally means "the preferred things" or "things that are pleasing." This matches the meaning of "Placita." The transition from "the pleasing things" to "tenets" or "opinions" makes sense in a philosophical context, where what pleases or satisfies intellectual criteria becomes a tenet or an accepted view. An expanded name may possibly have been (from Ps. Plutarch) Περὶ τῶν ἀρεσκόντων φιλοσόφοις φυσικῶν δογμάτων "Regarding the physical theories preferred by philosophers." The authors in the Loeb edition say, “In all probability, therefore, the lost original work had the title Περὶ τῶν ἀρεσκόντων, On the Placita (the Latin equivalent is De placitis).”
I will add some related quotes from the authors of this Loeb edition:
“The original treatise is incompletely preserved and has to be reconstructed from evidence in two main authors (with further assistance from a third). Diels had produced his reconstruction in two column and was thus unable to provide a single authoritative text. For this reason it was never translated into any modern language, with the exception of a double column Italian version (Torraca, I dossografi greci).”
“The name of the author of the compendium can be deduced from cross-references in Theodoret. Three times the bishop refers by name to the sources for the information he has on the doctrines of the philosopher, on one occasion also adding the titles of the works he used.”
“No ancient author with the name Aetius is known who can plausibly be connected with the compendium. As for the date of the work, the latest time of the composition, i.e., its tempus ante quem, is furnished by Ps. Plutarch’s Epitome, which from the evidence of the Christian apologist Athenagoras, must have been completed by about AD 150. For the earliest time of composition, i.e., its tempus post quem, we have to use the evidence of its content. The last philosopher to be mentioned is the Peripatetic philosopher Xenarchus of Seleucia, whose death occurred in the final years BC.”
“The Placita shows evidence of the beginnings of the Middle Platonist movement, which is to be dated to the period 50 BC to AD 50”
“As for the place of composition, the work itself gives no clues of any kind. Alexandria has been suggested, but this is no more than an educated guess. All that can be said is that the author must have had access to a considerable body of information on the doctrines of ancient philosophers.”
Placita (Loeb Classical Library) https://a.co/d/hibjlEJ
Aëtiana V: An Edition of the Reconstructed Text of the Placita With a Commentary and a Collection of Related Texts (Philosophia Antiqua, 153) (English, Greek and Latin Edition) https://a.co/d/767F1uL
And yes that is part of what I need on the "all sensations are true part - the sensations are always "true" but the opinions about what the sensations mean certainly are not always true.
Yes, errors in our thinking come from internal processes rather than external sources. This is despite the fact that our thoughts are triggered by external images impacting the mind. While our understanding starts with external stimuli, it is how our mind handles these stimuli internally that can lead to mistakes.
[Epicurus DL X 51b] (Yonge) "And, on the other side, error could not be possible, if we did not receive some other motion also, a sort of initiative of intelligence connected, it is true, with direct representation, but going beyond that representative. These conceptions being connected with direct perception which produces the representation, but going beyond it."
(Epicurus Book 28, Sedley trans, fr. 13, col. 6 inf.) "I also frequently reflected that if, when I raised difficulties which someone might have turned against us, he should claim that what used to be assimilated from ordinary language was the same as used to be practiced in the written work, many might well conclude that in those days false opinion was represented in that language, whether through an empirical process, an image-based process, or a theoretical process, or through a non-empirical process, not following one of our current divisions, but simply arising from an internal movement; but that now, because the means of expression is adapted to additional ends, discrimination provides a lead towards the truth. However, let no one ever try to get even with you by linking with you any trace of this suspicion; but [turn] to the entire faculty of empirical reasoning…
(Aetius 4.8.10) “Leucippus, Democritus, and Epicurus say that sensation and thought arise in the soul from images that approach from outside, for neither of these can occur to anyone without the image falling upon him.”
(Aetius 4.9.5 - 6) “Epicurus says that every sensation and every impression is true, but of the opinions some are true and some false; and sensation gives us a false picture in one respect only, namely with regard to objects of thought; but the impression does so in two respects, for there is impression of both sense objects and objects of thought. Parmenides, Empedocles, Anaxagoras, Democritus, Epicurus, and Heraclides say that the particular sensations of their own object occur in accordance with the matching sized of the pores, each of the sense objects corresponding to each sense.”
“In 2020 the editors of the present volume produced for the first time a complete reconstruction and edition of the text in a single column based on all the ancient evidence. This edition is the basis for the text and translation produced for the Loeb Classical Library.”
I wanted to share these quotes from Harvard's new (2023) translation of Placita.
Aetius, Placita. Text and translation by Jaap Mansfeld and David Runia:
(1.3.16) “Epicurus, the son of Neocles, the Athenian, who philosophized in the line of Democritus, said that the principles of the things that exist are bodies that are observable by reason, not containing any void, ungenerated, indestructible, unable to be crushed or have their parts modified or be qualitatively altered. These bodies are observable by reason; and they move with the void and throughout the void. The void itself is unlimited in size, and the bodies are unlimited in number. The bodies possess these three characteristics, shape, size, weight. Democritus stated that there were two, size and shape, but Epicurus added to these a third, weight. “For it is necessary,” he says “that the bodies are moved by the blow caused by weight, since they will otherwise not be moved.” The shapes of the atoms are inconceivably many, but not unlimited in number. They cannot have the form of a hook or a trident or bracelet, for these shapes are easily crushed, whereas atoms are impassible and unable to be crushed. They have their individual shapes, which observable by reason. The term atom is used, not because it is a smallest particle, but because it cannot be cut, being as it is impassible and not containing any void. As a result, when he speaks of an atom, he means what is uncrushable and impassible, not containing any void. That there is such a thing as an atom is clear. For there are elements that always exist, that is to say figures <without void>, and the unit.”
(1.5.4) “Metrodorus,* the teacher of Epicurus says that it is equally absurd that a single stalk should have sprung up on a large plain and that a single cosmos should have done the same in the Infinite. That the kosmoi are infinite in their multiplicity is clear from the fact that the causes are infinite in number. For if the cosmos is limited, while all the causes from which the cosmos originated are infinitely many, then necessarily the kosmoi are infinitely many. After all, where the causes are without limit, there the products [or: effects] are infinite in number or without limit also. These causes are either the atoms or the elements.”
*Metrodorus of Chios, not Metrodorus of Lampsacus
(1.7.25) “Epicurus says that the gods are human in form and are all observable by reason only because of the fine particles of which the nature of their images consists. The same philosopher says there are four other classes of natures that are indestructible: the indivisibles, the void, the infinite, and the similarities; these natures are called homoiomereiai (things with like parts) and elements.”
(1.8.2-3) “Thales, Pythagoras, Plato, and the Stoics say that demons are psychic beings; the heroes too are souls that have been separated from their bodies; and they (sc. the demons) are good if the souls are good, but wicked if the souls are wicked. But Epicurus admits none of these as demonic.”
(1.12.5) “Epicurus says that the bodies are inconceivably many [or: inconceivable in number], and that the first bodies, which are simple, possess heaviness. He also says that they atoms at one time move perpendicularly, at another time with a serve. But the bodies that move upward do so through impact or rebounding.”
(1.15.9) “Epicurus and Aristarchus say that the bodies in the dark do not have color.”
(1.18.3) “Leucippus, Democritus, Demetrius, Metrodorus, and Epicurus say that the atoms are infinite in number, and the void infinite in size.”
(1.20.2) “Epicurus says that all these terms are to be used interchangeably: void, place, and space.
(1.22.1-6) “Epicurus says [time] is a concomitant, that is an accompaniment of motions [or changes].”
(1.23.4) “Epicurus says there are two kinds of motion, that which occurs perpendicularly and that which occurs through rebounding.”
(1.29.3) “Epicurus says that chance is a cause that is unstable in relation to persons, times and places, <and that all things occur> by necessity, through choice, and by chance."
(2.1.5) “Epicurus says that the distance between the kosmoi is unequal.”
(2.2.5) “Epicurus, however, says that it is possible that the kosmoi are like a ball, but that it is possible that they make use of other shapes as well.”
(2.3.1-2) “All other philosophers say that the cosmos is ensouled and administered by providence. But Leucippus, Democritus and Epicurus say that it is constituted out of atoms by an unreasoning natural force.”
(2.4.13) “Epicurus says that the cosmos is destroyed in a multitude of ways, for example as an animal and as a plant and in numerous other ways.”
(2.7.3) “Epicurus says that of some kosmoi the limit is rare but of others it is dense, and of these limits some are in motion, while others are unmoved.”
(2.13.14) [at the end of the section regarding the substance of planets and stars] “Epicurus does not reject any of these views, holding fast to what is possible.”
(2.20.14) “Epicurus says that [the sun] is an earthy concentration inflamed by the fire in its cavities in the manner of a pumice stone or sponge.”
(2.21.5) “Epicurus says that [the sun] is the size that it appears, or just a little larger or smaller.”
(2.22.4) “Epicurus says that all the above-mentioned shapes [of the sun] are possible.”
(3.4.3 & 5) “Epicurus says that [clouds] accumulate from atoms; and that hail is formed in round shapes and rain gradually acquires its form in its lengthy descent.”
(3.15.6 & 11) [of earthquakes] “Metrodorus says that no body that is in its proper place moves, unless one were actually to push it forward or drag it down; therefore, the earth does not move either, as it is located in its natural place, though some places collapse because of the trembling… Epicurus says that it is possible that the earth moves when it is thrown upward and as it were struck from beneath by thick and humid air that lies beneath it; but it is also possible that, as it is full of holes in its nether parts, it is shaken by the wind that is dispersed through its cavernous hollows.”
(4.3.11) “Epicurus says that it is a mixture of four ingredients, namely of a fiery quality, an aerial quality, a pheumatic quality, and of a fourth quality that is nameless; this last, for him, is the perceptive part. Of this the pneuma brings about movement, the air rest, the warm component the perceptible warmth of the body, while the anonymous component bring about the perception in us humans, for perception is not present in any of the elements that have names.”
(4.4.7) “Democritus and Epicurus say that the soul is bipartite, having the rational part established in the breast, and the irrational part diffused through the whole compound of the body.”
(4.5.6) “[Definitions of the regent part in accordance with top-down division between head and chest (or brain and hear) and subsidiary top-down division of locations in head or chest…]
(4.7.4) “Epicurus, Democritus, and Aristotle say that the soul is mortal, perishing together with the body.”
(4.8.2) “Epicurus: ‘Sense/sensation is the bodily part that is the faculty, and the sensory recognition that is the activity”
“τὸ μόριόν ἐστιν ἡ αἴσθησις, ἥτις ἐστὶν ἡ δύναμις, καὶ τὸ ἐπαίσθημα, ὅπερ ἐστὶ τὸ ἐνέργημα.”
ἡ αἴσθησις = τὸ μόριόν = ἡ δύναμις; & τὸ ἐπαίσθημα = τὸ ἐνέργημα
(4.8.10) “Leucippus, Democritus, and Epicurus say that sensation and thought arise in the soul from images that approach from outside, for neither of these can occur to anyone without the image falling upon him.”
(4.9.5 - 6) “Epicurus says that every sensation and every impression is true, but of the opinions some are true and some false; and sensation gives us a false picture in one respect only, namely with regard to objects of thought; but the impression does so in two respects, for there is impression of both sense objects and objects of thought. Parmenides, Empedocles, Anaxagoras, Democritus, Epicurus, and Heraclides say that the particular sensations of their own object occur in accordance with the matching sized of the pores, each of the sense objects corresponding to each sense.”
(4.9.12) “Epicurus says that the pleasures and pains actually belong with the sense objects.”
(4.9.20) “And Epicurus [says] that the wise man is knowable only to another wise man"
(4.13.1) “Leucippus, Democritus, and Epicurus believe that the visual sensation is the result of the penetration of images.”
(4.14.2) “Leucippus, Democritus, and Epicurus say the reflections in mirrors come about through the manifestations of the images, which move away from us but arise on the mirror that sends them back.”
(4.19.4 - 5) “Epicurus says voice/sound is a stream sent out from entities that speak, reverberate, or make noises. This stream is broken up into small particles of the same shape (“of the same shape” is said of globular with globular, and of irregular and triangular with what is of the same kind). When these fall upon the ears, the perception of voice results. This is clear from a comparison with the skins that let out water and the fullers who blow air into garments. Democritus says that the air too is broken up into corpuscles of the same shape, and these roll along with the small particles of voice/sound, “for jackdaw sits beside jackdaw” and “God always brings like to like.”* Thus on beaches the same pebbles are seen in the same spots, the rounds ones in one place and the elongated ones in another. Also in the case of people using sieves, similarly shaped things gather together to the same place, so that beans and lentils are separate.
* “the first of these quotes is a proverb, the second a quotation from Homer.”
(4.23.1 -3) [On bodily affections and whether the soul experiences pain along with these] “The Stoics say that the affections are in the places that have been affected, but the sensations of them are in the ruling part. Epicurus says that both the affections and the sensations are in the places that have been affected, for the ruling part is free from affection. Strato says that both the affections and the sensations exist together in the ruling part, not in the affected places.”
(5.1.2) “Xenophanes and Epicurus reject divination”
(5.5.1) “Pythagoras, Epicurus, and Democritus say that the female releases semen as well as the male, for she has concealed testicles.* For this reason she also has desire for sexual intercourse.”
* “This refers to the ovaries.”
(5.16.1) “Democritus and Epicurus say that the embryo is nourished in the womb through the mouth. For this reason as soon as it is born it moves with its mouth to the breast. For, they say, in the womb too there are nipples and mouths though which it is fed.”
(5.19.5) “Democritus and Epicurus say that the living beings have come into being first in a composition of elements lacking in form, with the aid of the life-generating moisture.”
(5.20.2) “Democritus and Epicurus <do not include> the heavenly beings as living beings.”
There's obviously some matter in that space between worlds but not enough to have a world, otherwise the gods would be *in a cosmos*.
My view is there is an infinite amount of matter in the universe and an infinite amount of matter between worlds, while there is a finite amount of matter within worlds.
Aetius, Placita -- Text and translation by Jaap Mansfeld and David Runia:
(1.5.4) "“Metrodorus,* the teacher of Epicurus says that it is equally absurd that a single stalk should have sprung up on a large plain and that a single cosmos should have done the same in the Infinite. That the kosmoi are infinite in their multiplicity is clear from the fact that the causes are infinite in number. For if the cosmos is limited, while all the causes from which the cosmos originated are infinitely many, then necessarily the kosmoi are infinitely many. After all, where the causes are without limit, there the products [or: effects] are infinite in number or without limit also. These causes are either the atoms or the elements."
*Metrodorus of Chios, not Metrodorus of Lampsacus
(1.7.25) “Epicurus says that the gods are human in form and are all observable by reason only because of the fine particles of which the nature of their images consists. The same philosopher says there are four other classes of natures that are indestructible: the indivisibles, the void, the infinite, and the similarities; these natures are called homoiomereiai (things with like parts) and elements.”
(2.2.5) “Epicurus, however, says that it is possible that the kosmoi are like a ball, but that it is possible that they make use of other shapes as well.”
I believe that DeWitt is technically correct given the narrow modern view of vision. I do wish to add, as we all already know, that Epicurus clearly emphasized visualization of mental images. If "cow" is the object of consideration, he did not want you to just think about the word "cow" and the definition of a cow, and the logic involved in making cow a distinct class, etc., he wanted you, to the best of your ability, to focus on your mental vision of a cow.
For some contrast, I will share Bailey's comments "There do exist divine being or gods: they are innumerable as are the created things which perish and immortal even as created things are mortal. They are, as is proved by their 'idols' which visit us, like in figure to men. In constitution they are eternal in form but composed of transient matter: this matter, which is all 'alike' and contains no alien elements, comes from the innumerable atoms moving in the void between the worlds: in everlasting succession the atoms stream into the 'forms' of the divine being and unite there for the moment to constitute their body. Then they fly off again in the union in which they have now joined, thus forming the continuous succession of like 'idols', which are perceived by the mind and our direct source of knowledge of the existence of the gods."
(Aetius 4.13.1) “Leucippus, Democritus, and Epicurus believe that the visual sensation is the result of the penetration of images.”
The translations that I shared in the Epicurean Politics thread came from the Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, Volume 23, September 1920. (Given those parts of the text are just Philodemus speaking, and do not quote or mention Epicurus, I do not expect them to be Usener. )
The Rhetorica Of Philodemus; Volume 23 https://a.co/d/84LUcGM
Possibility of transcription error? Perhaps it was originally plural.
It seems the use between the plural and the singular was very casual, just as we still have the casual essential similarity of singular and plural in many statements ("one may say.../people may say"), ( "an animal acts in order to... /animals act in order to... "). Understating one cow goes a long way towards understanding cows generally.
The various translations into English would add in a whole other dimension
I had never thought of that, but I agree. I have only seen this type of mapping with primary sources but it really would be great to have this as "the tip of the iceberg" with translations following chronologically, possibly divided by language!
you can see how all stems from one manuscript.
Yes, although, unfortunately, in this case it is "Omega" which really only exists by way of the widely accepted idea that Q and O came from the same source.
To me the "flaming ramparts of the world" are exactly the outer shell of our cosmos/world-system described by other philosophers of the time. The outer shell - the outer wall/ramparts - are on fire. That's what makes the stars shine. 2:1144 also uses the "ramparts/walls of the world" moenia mundi
Accepting, as we do, the significance that the "walls" can be little more than currents/pressure and, even if more substantial, can and will breakdown into the infinite space beyond them, I must agree that we have the typical high tolerance for various possibilities:
(DL X 88) "A world is a circumscribed portion of sky, containing heavenly bodies and an earth and all the heavenly phenomena, whose dissolution will cause all within it to fall into confusion, it is a piece cut off from the infinite and ends in a boundary either rare or dense, either revolving or stationary: its outline may be spherical or three-cornered or any kind of shape" (Bailey)
"A world is a circumscribed portion of the universe, which contains stars and earth and all other visible things, cut off from the infinite, and terminating [and terminating in a boundary which may be either thick or thin, a boundary whose dissolution will bring about the wreck of all within it] in an exterior which may either revolve or be at rest, and be round or triangular or of any other shape whatever. All these alternatives are possible : they are contradicted by none of the facts in this world, in which an extremity can nowhere be discerned. (Hicks)
I think these quotes are related. Allow me to add them to the mix:
Philodemus On Rhetoric (Περὶ Ῥητορικῆς) translated by Hubbell
“But if philosophers do not enter politics, yet they help their native land by teaching the young to obey the laws; nay more, by teaching them to act justly even if there are no laws, and to shun injustice as they would fire.” (2.154, fr. 13)
“The philosophers are not vexed if people, like foolish sheep or cattle, attend to an inferior, but are satisfied that what they say, particularly about the attitude of the common people, shall please the few; and in action they are most blameless, nor do they, as slaves of all, try to rule everything for themselves. For they do not expect to satisfy their wants at the expense of the public.” (1.237, col.)
“The philosophers of our school agree with οἱ πολλοί on a question of what is just and good, differing from them only in this that they arrive at their conclusions by logic as well as by feeling, and never forget these conclusions, but always compare the chief good with things indifferent. They do differ from οἱ πολλοί about the means to attain happiness, and do not think that offices, power, conquests and the like are proper means to the end.” (1.254, col. 21)
“Some things are just or unjust by nature and never change, others vary according to locality and condition. Laws which are not of this nature, but are established for various reasons ought to be obeyed, or if the philosophers do not think that they can live well under these laws they ought to leave the country. They can be social to a high degree by observing those principles which make for likeness and not for differences; we can do this without being observed as well as with publicity, with pleasure and not under compulsion, steadily and not in an uncertain fashion.” (1.258, col. 24)
“The philosopher does not choose his profession for the same reason that one chooses military or political power. The latter with a slowly acting mind is willing to accept any power, while the former by syllogisms and memory of resemblance and difference, and a consideration of consequences, and especially by the use of his sharpness of intellect, rejects everything that does not tend toward happiness, and shares in them only as he uses the necessary arts for the tasks that arise… The philosopher… in every matter uses his keen mind, with which he is able to see when the ambition or idleness of men goes wrong, and neglects everything which is not useful for happiness.” (2.30, col. 20)
“Why is it more disgraceful to be silent and permit Isocrates to speak than to live in a city and allow Manes to dig, or to stay on land and allow the Phoenician trader to be tossed by the waves, or to pass one’s life in safety as a private citizen and allow Themistocles to enjoy the perils of a general?” (2.55, col. 40)
The "grant" is mostly a joke.
It almost seems like we need a flowchart showing how we got to what we have available in English to us now.
Such a chart must exist. For example, here is Butterfield's mapping of Oblongus and Quadratus.
Title: Photographic Preservation of DRN's Codex Oblongus and Codex Quadratus
Applicant:
Introduction: DRN's Codex Oblongus and Codex Quadratus, held by the University of Leiden since 1690, are seminal works of immense historical and academic value. Currently, only limited pages of these manuscripts are available in digital format. This project aims to create a comprehensive digital archive of both codices, ensuring their preservation and accessibility for future scholarly work.
Objectives:
Methodology:
Budget:
Conclusion: The successful completion of this project will ensure that DRN's Codex Oblongus and Codex Quadratus are preserved digitally for future generations, supporting ongoing academic research and preserving these treasures of human knowledge.
